I guess this is what you have to expect from an experienced and seasoned political editor from The Australian Financial Review:
Oh for goodness sake. Enough. Pledges in blood. Policy run on the smell of intestinal fortitude alone. We are supposed to be talking about who becomes prime minister here, not an action man movie … But if you are looking for Abbott and his shambolic front bench, you quickly find yourself dealing with metaphors beyond the unattractive image of an emperor with no clothes [better than Alan, though]. Monty [is this our mOnty?] Python and the Holy Grail’s King Arthur in his chain mail and ill-fitting crown, riding an imaginary horse while porters walk behind him banging coconut shells together is more the ticket … Two more years is a long time to get away with being such a negative, opportunistic and hollow man.
Oh, PLEEEESE. And we are supposed to pay money for this drivel. Talk about SHAMBOLIC.
In sum: “I personally can’t stand Tony Abbott.”
Her entire case seems to rest on the fact he made a blood pledge.
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 8:28 am
By the way, this is the bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail that she’s referring to. But surely the metaphor is more appropriately applied to Gillard?
Isn’t Gillard the one running along banging coconuts together, pretending she’s on an invisible horse?
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 8:35 am
It’s pretty amazing that the editor would even run such unprofessional crap.
Abu Chowdah
29 Oct 11 at 8:44 am
A journalist having a public melt down – so professional. Abbott has really unsettled these parrots to the point of unhinged. Their carefully constructed narratives have been destroyed by Gillrudd, and Abbott has the temerity to point this out.
There might be a certain ghoulish pleasure to be had watching Insiders.
No Worries
29 Oct 11 at 8:48 am
here’s the link for that article
http://afr.com/p/opinion/labor_hopeless_abbott_hollow_man_iIzzHU5YM1A546LnB9PbAO
one person’s opinion
val majkus
29 Oct 11 at 8:49 am
on the other hand she does say ‘Labor hopeless’
val majkus
29 Oct 11 at 8:51 am
Stutch needs to get rid of her once and for all ..he’s been there a short while and needs to affect change pretty quickly or he’s stuck too.
If the rest of Fairfax wants her, then well and good , but he needs to get Tingles off the Fin ASAP.
My lord, he looks around that office/Newsroom and thinks to himself.. where the hell am I going to start?
JC
29 Oct 11 at 8:52 am
I find it difficult to stomach the idea that the Gillard ministry isn’t shambolic.
All Abbot has done is said he’d oppose the MRRT and ETS, along with bring back a more humane version of offshore processing.
It is amusing that he has broken their backs with such simple, largely poorly detailed opposition.
They’ve gone absolutely feral simply because as the opposition leader, he said no.
It just means it is a weak Government that Gillard leads.
.
29 Oct 11 at 8:59 am
So fair and balanced – ha ha ha
Boy on a bike
29 Oct 11 at 9:12 am
She makes sense to me.
Look, she obviously can’t stand Abbott, but she does give actual reasons why his policy positions on 3 areas are flakey crap the hollowness of which is being masked by the public’s absurd personal over reaction against Gillard.
Her hubby in the SMH used to be worse at detailing the personal hatred without even mentioning the policies, if I recall correctly.
Steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 9:13 am
JC can say what he likes, no editor should have allowed this drivel thru.
The ever more egregious Labor propagandist is supposed to be a reporter and not just an analyst.
Besides ‘analysis’ like this simply should have no place in a supposed premier newspaper.
JamesK
29 Oct 11 at 9:13 am
Maybe a new editor will sort things out at the AFR? Oh hang on…
ar
29 Oct 11 at 9:25 am
Steve – you’re telling me the ETS, MRRT and Malaysia deal are good policy?
.
29 Oct 11 at 9:31 am
Perhaps he was stuck with lack of content.
He needs to fire her, James.
Jc
29 Oct 11 at 9:34 am
Yes dot. That’s what Steve basically is suggesting.
Jc
29 Oct 11 at 9:34 am
Yes, and a what a shock that is.
ETS – the arguments are known, and we nearly got one under Howard/Turnbull. If you think there is no one on the right of politics who think they are a good idea (including Hunt who has been forced to turn around his views for political expediency) you are dishonest.
MRRT – at least we have one WA MP now, and Harry Clarke, from the right who support some form of it. No doubt there are others.
Malaysia deal – yes, it’s a travesty that the Gillard government wanted to try a scheme that the same top PS who advised the Howard government said should work to stop boat arrivals, as opposed to Nauru, and that the local UNHRC rep was highly involved in its negotiation and still supported as a good regional deal.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 9:43 am
Pleeease. Try to keep your tenuous claims credible.
johno
29 Oct 11 at 9:49 am
Steve, your first two arguments go down to cherry picking non left wing politicians giving conditional support to those policies. You agree the Malaysian deal is shithouse.
“flakey hollowness”
How much is Sussex St paying you, dude?
.
29 Oct 11 at 9:51 am
Mal Washer is of the left. The stupid papa smurf lookalike also believes in global warming.
Infidel Tiger
29 Oct 11 at 9:52 am
Is Tingle doing a Margo meltdown?
Walk around the grounds until you feel at home.
Bob
29 Oct 11 at 9:52 am
Pledges in blood!
How many things did Whitlam promise to do in his first days in office? Whitlam sought to fulfill those campaign promises that did not require legislation:
• Whitlam ordered negotiations to establish full relations with the People’s Republic of China, and broke those with Taiwan.
• Legislation allowed the Minister for Defence to grant exemptions from conscription. Barnard exempted everyone.
• Seven men were at that time incarcerated for refusing conscription; Whitlam arranged for their freedom.
• The Whitlam government in its first days re-opened the equal pay case pending before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
• Whitlam and Barnard eliminated sales tax on contraceptive pills, announced major grants for the arts, and appointed an interim schools commission.
• The duumvirate barred racially discriminatory sport teams from Australia, and instructed the Australian delegation at the UN to vote in favour of sanctions on apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia
• It also ordered home all remaining Australian troops in Vietnam, though most (including all conscripts) had been withdrawn by McMahon.
McGovern promised to go to Hanoi to negotiate peace in his first 90 days?
The party that wins elections overturns many policies of its defeated predecessors because that is why the winning party won and why the members of that belong to that party rather than to now opposition party.
Elections are supposed to change major policies.
What is the main business of the first session of parliament after any election? Manifesto promises and repeals.
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 9:59 am
Mal Washer has now said he wouldn’t vote for the tax, steve. You’ve got to stop paying attention to random thought bubbles from backbenchers.
Quentin George
29 Oct 11 at 10:01 am
Yes, Johno, Harry’s an interesting case. He used to be right of centre a number of years ago, but he became so caught up with the global warming hype from the left, he’s got under the blankets with them now. He cuddles them to his bosom every night!
whyisitso
29 Oct 11 at 10:01 am
Still there Steve? You know what this means?
No you’re lying.
.
29 Oct 11 at 10:08 am
When Bob Brown talks about ‘hate media’ surely he is referring to this drivel and similar outpourings from Mike Carlton and other Fairfax luvvies.
Blue Puffle
29 Oct 11 at 10:11 am
I made it to an OP! Hey wait, I’m not YOUR m0nty. I’m my own m0nty!
Tingle’s piece is about as slanted as this is in the other direction. Or pick most opinion pieces from Shanahan, Milne or the other dribblers now behind the Oz paywall, more drivel they want us to pay for.
Opinion is cheap and mostly meaningless.
m0nty
29 Oct 11 at 10:16 am
The point being dot, that I don’t see something like an MRRT should on principle be opposed in any form by the Right. But I am not sure what right wing economists figures apart from Clarke have endorsed it: I am sure there would be others around.
Basically, as I have said many times, this right wing anti-science disbelief of AGW as a serious issue is what is poisoning the credibility of the Right, as is (in the US at least) the return of various forms of voodoo economics and a refusal to acknowledge serious issues in tax and wealth/income distribution.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 10:19 am
That’s because Harry is talking about an ideal, the MRRT is NOTHING like the ideal.
Ideally I wish we had a VAT, LVT and resource rent tax.
The RSPT was just woeful and the MRRT distorts the market. It doesn’t tax gold? What a botch.
What the hell are you talking about? The US total Government spending to GDP ratio is 46%.
That’s quite enough redistribution already Steven.
.
29 Oct 11 at 10:25 am
how does the pledge in blood differ for FDR’s legendary first 100 days?
Ever since, presidents have been judged against FDR for what they accomplished in their first 100 days
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 10:52 am
Labour is not “hopeless”. Labour has completely lost the ability and desire to look after the individual.
The worst example of this (and it is probably only the tip of the iceberg) is the protection of Craig Thomson and his mates abusing the monies they hold on trust for lowly paid workers.
This government is without any moral authority whatsoever. Tingle is a biter vinegar titted mouthpiece for the ALP who like most lefties ignores the bleeding obvious, like stevie, if it suits them.
Tiny Dancer
29 Oct 11 at 11:06 am
It is NOT anti-science to question the claims being put forward by others. That is the stuff of science.
It IS anti-science to blindly accept at face value the claims of others without questioning them and voicing your concerns.
Those scientists who join the Left’s use of science to push the Left’s re-distribution agenda are poisoning the credibility of science.
johno
29 Oct 11 at 11:08 am
Tiny Dancer,
governments in New Zealand and many other places where coalition governments with tiny majorities are common because of proportional representation often have to deal with a rogue MP with growing legal problems. sad to watch.
I do not recall the history of recent australian state minority governments.
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 11:13 am
p.s. the cuurent Indian government secured bail for a few MPs to boost its numbers in a recent no-confidence vote.
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 11:15 am
Then no doubt you can tell us how much lowering our CO2 emissions by 5% will affect global temperature.
jupes
29 Oct 11 at 11:22 am
Steve, perhaps you can also answer Plimer’s question, from today’s Oz letters page (as in answer his question , not run straight of with the tiresome ad hominem attacks on him):
How does the atmosphere distinguish between a molecule of CO2 naturally emitted, that is, the 97 per cent of such emissions, which are by definition good, having come about because of Gaia’s functioning; and a molecule of CO2 in the 3 per cent, that is emitted as a result of evil Coalition voters firing up their four-wheel drives to drop privileged scions off at Melbourne Grammar?
James in Melbourne
29 Oct 11 at 11:35 am
Come on mOnty, you believe in collectivism. Surely you are happy to be OUR mOnty???? ?)
Judith Sloan
29 Oct 11 at 11:36 am
Hi Alan…
LOL.
C.L.
29 Oct 11 at 11:59 am
lol..
Yes Alan, she Laura, the old age home supervisor, can’t stand Tony.
JC
29 Oct 11 at 12:02 pm
Reasonable question, James. However what difference does quality make to the climate in terms CO2? It’s a question of quantity of CO2 that upsets the Gaia worshippers, is it not? (Heaven forfend that I should defend Steve, which I’m not).
Gab
29 Oct 11 at 12:04 pm
#unhinged
carbon worker
29 Oct 11 at 12:05 pm
James: I have told people here man times before – if you want to know the answer to commonly repeated (yet previously rebutted) climate change canards like that one, you should try reading a site like Skeptical Science, which has an extensive list of all “skeptic” arguments you have ever heard of, and usually links to the papers that support the mainstream view.
Plimer’s question is answered here. It is hard to believe that people still think this is a convincing argument.
What it does reflect, I guess, is that many skeptic arguments have a superficial appeal which does not stand up to scrutiny.
What people like you do is: refuse to do the scrutiny.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 12:55 pm
steve from brisbane
The change in position by Libs is easy to justify when you remeber 2 things.
1: The original ETS was proposed when it looked like actual binding international agreements were going to be put in place. Effectively tarriffs were to be place on imports from non-ETS countries. So on basic economic terms IF an international agreement had been put in place wed be better off customising our own rather than having tarriffs, or one imposed.
2: It didnt happen, it wont happen, and at this stage will never happen. Thus from both an economic and an environmental point of view there is no point in going ahead with any form of ETS.
This is why theres no point.
Energy generated from new coal-power stations in this single state could eclipse emissions from an entire country
thefrollickingmole
29 Oct 11 at 12:56 pm
I wouldn’t want to be accepted into any club that would have me as a member, Judith.
m0nty
29 Oct 11 at 12:58 pm
Neither does any current climate policy, so we’re on a nice, even footing, except that the currently fashionable form of “dead wrong” costs more.
wreckage
29 Oct 11 at 1:03 pm
I followed your link Steve (it’s broken by the way but I figured out the correct page). It said
Bull.Shit.
That’s a clear case of anthropomorphism (in the same vein as the fallacious “nature abhors a vacuum”).
The “natural cycle” doesn’t do anything “to keep a balance.” It has no motives. It has no agency. The fact that the system stays in balance despite shocks such as volcanoes, mass extinctions, and so on shows that it’s self-regulating like most stable systems.
Some “science” site you’ve got there.
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 1:05 pm
It is a start, Wreckage. Just a start.
While ever the Tea Party is influential in the US, that country’s response will be limited.
The Tea Party will burn itself out eventually. As Monty has been telling you, its enthusiasm at rallies is giving a false impression of its broader popularity.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:11 pm
Dave, you are getting into interesting territory there. Nature is self regulating, sure, but only up to a point. Species die all the time, and did so even before human expansion. Humans are not an essential part of nature’s systems. Self regulation might mean nature making it impossible for humans to live in current population numbers at 21st century living standards.
So you’re right, nature has no agency. Nature doesn’t need us. We need it, though.
m0nty
29 Oct 11 at 1:14 pm
daddy dave: regardless of your point (and I agree, actually, you have pointed out a subtle anthropomorphism) what difference does that make to the fact that it illustrates the carbon cycle in a way James should be able to understand, and shows Plimers little canard makes no sense?
As is typical with you lot, you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
JC does the same thing – he believes in AGW, yet tells people not to visit the site which is almost certainly the easiest one in which people can check the mainstream answer to “skeptic” arguments.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:15 pm
SoB, you’re an idiot; the main criticism of Plimer was his insistence that more CO2 came from volcanoes than humans; based on subaerial volcanic activity Plimer is probably wrong; BUT we don’t know how many active vents are in the ocean and since 90% of plate ridges, the site of vents, are in the ocean, particularly the deep ocean, Plimer is probably right.
Anyway, as I say, you are a moron, but other people seem to tolerate you so do yourself a favour and look at this:
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/alternative-energy/deep-ocean-vents-power5-times-greater-than-nuclear-power-plants.html
cohenite
29 Oct 11 at 1:16 pm
What it does reflect, I guess, is that many skeptic arguments have a superficial appeal which does not stand up to scrutiny.
‘Skeptical Science’ is notorious for actually failing to actually quote the arguments of sceptics, coming up with its own generalizations of sceptical arguments, and then countering its own generalizatons. Some unscruplous people find this mode of argument convincing, or at the least, convenient.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 1:17 pm
As is typical with you lot, you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
AGW is the baby?
Regarding the carbon cycle, I seem to remember there being recent papers that have through conventional understandings into chaos. Here was one of them.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 1:23 pm
It illustrates that they over-simplify the issues. In fact the detail of this explanation falls into the same trap, with helpful but misleading primary-school style diagrams of CO2 cycles that treat the system as static.
That might be fine for uncontroversial topics but it isn’t good enough when you’re claiming to be providing scientific refutations.
Plus, what dover said.
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 1:24 pm
That’s right: d-b also does his best too encourage people to not examine a convenient source of summaries of mainstream science.
What a con you are. Go back to Motl and the other obscurantist, out of the mainstream, scientists on which you prefer to suckle your “skepticism”.
One of your favourites – Pielke Snr, has been happy enough to engage in long debate there recently, as you probably know.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:24 pm
steve from brisbane
ALL your facts and figures are irrelivant in the face of industrialisation in the developing world.
Dont you get that?
It wouldnt matter if you were 100% right in every respect, nations arent responding, and in 90% of cases cant repond without inflicting misery on their populations.
We sell coal to India, but we dont sell low/no emissions uranium.
Im sorry but that is the sum total of political will in Australia alone.
thefrollickingmole
29 Oct 11 at 1:33 pm
What an absurd joke , d-d.
Complaining about “over simplication” in response to climate change denialism which has thrived on stupid simplifications – eg “how can such a tiny, tiny amount of gas in the atmosphere cause such problems? It’s absurd!”
There are many, many other examples if I went to the list of skeptic arguments on Skeptical Science.
As for cohenite: I would hope that even the hopeless d-b would acknowledge that no one with any credibility in climate science skepticism believes Plimer’s secret volcano theory. At its heart is the idea that, by an amazing co-incidence, from the start of industrialisation or the planet, those secret underwater sources of CO2 started spewing forth just to confuse scientists.
As for carbon cycle uncertainty: yes, it will interesting to see the detail of Salby’s arguments – he gave a talk on it in Melbourne at that conference a few months back and (according to John Neilsen-Gammon, a very non-political climatologist) apparently convinced no one in the room.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:35 pm
With all due respect, they’re not summaries of mainstream science. And I certainly wouldn’t direct people to summaries of mainstream science produced by someone engaged in polemics, and who had nothing more than an Bachelors degree under their belt.
When were Pielke Sr, Spencer, Koutsoyiannis, etc. not mainstream?
And, yes, he has. Pielke Sr has been a gentleman for many a long year.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 1:40 pm
Suck it up, Steve.
So you agree they over-simplified but you’re upset because some (un-named) skeptics also over-simplify and they get away with it.
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 1:43 pm
Judith,
Leaving aside your comments in bold, did you do a cut and paste from Tingle’s article? Was it originally published with those spelling and grammatical errors? Eg.
“Oh for good sake” “intenstinal fortuitude” “supposed to talking about” “dealing win metaphors”
Septimus
29 Oct 11 at 1:45 pm
Notice how Steve continues to avoid criticising the world’s most successful slayer of warmenism – Euro-emissions trashing, cap and trade dumping Barack Obama?
Warmenism: nobody cares.
C.L.
29 Oct 11 at 1:46 pm
thefrollickingmole: one of the endless frustrations of this is that the uninformed and ideological skepticism/denial of AGW as a serious issue is itself preventing the escalation of the issue internationally – primarily by the obvious effect of the Tea Party right in America.
Hence, you and anyone else who cares to make the point that “well, it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, it’s not being taken seriously internationally anyway and until it is no one should anything.”
It is to large extent your own skepticism that is preventing it being taken seriously internationally. You are applauding the effects of your own ill informed approach to both the science and the moral aspects of a response.
Btw that developing countries “can’t” do anything to help without “causing misery” is an exaggeration.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:47 pm
Complaining about “over simplication” in response to climate change denialism which has thrived on stupid simplifications
You would have a point if this is what sceptical arguments were limited to.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 1:47 pm
I’ve wondered idly about those vents, Cohenite, but had thought there were too many problems with depth and transmission distances to make it worthwhile.
Thanks for the link.
Winston Smith
29 Oct 11 at 1:49 pm
daddy dave: I agreed to a touch of anthropomorphism, that’s all.
Your trite criticisms as to it using “helpful but misleading primary school style diagrams” was worthless.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:49 pm
Give the dead horse a rest. This meme appears in every other post from you. Explain it or stop it.
Choose wisely.
No Worries
29 Oct 11 at 1:50 pm
Got to do other things for a while No Worries, and it has been explained in the past.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:57 pm
Steve,
What are we going to do about water vapour?
When can we expect to see the Water Vapour Reduction Act?
It’s a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 – surely you guys are working on a way to control it? Perhaps a tax might do the trick?
James in Melbourne
29 Oct 11 at 1:57 pm
What the hell? What do you think is causing the increase in water vapour?
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 1:59 pm
“Btw that developing countries “can’t” do anything to help without “causing misery” is an exaggeration.”
Congratulations Steve, you have apparently decoupled standards of living from energy consumption, a goal unreachable by any of your scientific predicessors, I expect to see you pick up yyour Nobel prize any day now?
Fact: Energy consumption = standards of living. (Or as close a yardstick as you would want)
thefrollickingmole
29 Oct 11 at 1:59 pm
You think mainstream science is warmenism – the increase in temperature is going to stop because climate sensitivity is lower than what the IPCC thinks.
In fact, this is held by the minority of climate scientists.
People who read what the minority of climate scientists say should also read what the majority view is. Skeptical Science by and large does a successful job at that.
steve from brisbane
29 Oct 11 at 2:03 pm
Nobody cares, Steve.
Especially Obama.
C.L.
29 Oct 11 at 2:05 pm
Oh for good sake. Enough. Pledges in blood. Policy run on the smell of intenstinal fortuitude alone. We are supposed to talking about who becomes prime minister here, not an action man movie … But if you are looking for Abbott and his shambolic front bench, you quickly find youself dealing win metaphors beyond the unattractive image of an emperor with no clothes
Well that’s very poetic I’m not sure what it means tho’. Except, of course, the assertion that Tony Abbott is being deemed a quality of leader that he isn’t. Assisted no doubt by the inevitable improvement in one’s appearance when sitting next to someone extraordinarily ugly.
Perhaps she has a point. I speculate this on the sole basis that the words ‘drivel’ and ‘rubbish’ are the standard right-wing retorts to arguments that can’t otherwise be answered.
Monty [is this our mOnty?] Python and the Holy Grail’s King Arthur in his chain mail and ill-fitting crown, riding an imaginary horse while porters walk behind him banging coconut shells together is more the ticket
Well I heard that there was a revival of psychedelic rock, dropping acid and so forth. Now I know for sure.
Two more years is a long time to get away with being such a negative, opportunistic and hollow man.
Translated: Two years is ample time for the public relations people to train Abbott to behave and appear in a manner consistent with the most likely personality type to win as gleaned from focus group data analysis.
On the plus side I know what to buy Laura for her birthday. Should brighten up the House of Reprehensibles some.
Adrien
29 Oct 11 at 2:28 pm
Isn’t it about time that we all cut the shit and stopped pretending that this or that aspiring PM is unusually odious in being negative, opportunistic and hollow? The only people in the House who are not negative, opportunistic and hollow men are the negative, opportunistic and hollow women.
Adrien
29 Oct 11 at 2:30 pm
Last time I checked, the AFR has some evil (EVIL!) bit of code on its paywalled content that screws up attempts to copy and paste text, thus I guess Judith probably retyped it.
m0nty
29 Oct 11 at 2:32 pm
She doesn’t like it the Coalition have found spin doctors as good as Rudd’s. Maybe she can agitate for less labour market mobility.
.
29 Oct 11 at 2:39 pm
You think mainstream science is warmenism
No, I don’t think this at all.
the increase in temperature is going to stop because climate sensitivity is lower than what the IPCC thinks.
Firstly, the increase in temp has stopped for at least the last decade. And, secondly, no, because I don’t think we really know what is behind (rebound from the LIA, natural variability, a combination of anthropogenic factors like LUC, GHGs, and so on) the warming experienced this last century as much as we don’t know what is behind the stasis of last decade.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 2:48 pm
SoB; I retract my previous comment that you are an idiot; in fact you are a fuckwit.
AGW depends absolutely on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor; there are 2 measures of this, relative humidity and specific humidity; the relationship between these 2 and AGW is explained thus:
from page 263:
In fact SH has been falling since 1948:
If AGW were performing as it is predicted then there would be a tropical hot-spot [THS] caused by accelerated atmospheric warming in the tropics produced by evaporated water. There is no THS.
cohenite
29 Oct 11 at 3:11 pm
[...] long time to get away with being such a negative, opportunistic and hollow man.” This is how the dwarf-throwers at Catallaxy see this Tingle article. I guess it is predictable that these mental midgets go into overdrive in defending someone like [...]
Abbott’s overwhelming flaws gives Gillard a glimpse of hope « Harry Clarke
29 Oct 11 at 3:13 pm
Come on Steve,
Your case assumes that the only determinant of climate is CO2 plus positive feedback from water vapor. Now that the former has been controlled, I’m just interested in your plans to control the latter?
Don’t quit with the problem half-solved, cut out all that nasty assumed positive feedback, too.
Then, Climate Stasis! Yay!! The nirvana!!
If you put enough positive feedback in your predictive model, you can predict any scary result in 100 years, hell you can get away without any input data, just running on the noise.
James in Melbourne
29 Oct 11 at 3:16 pm
That was meant to be in quotation marks. Not sure where it’s from, but it’s good.
James in Melbourne
29 Oct 11 at 3:27 pm
Ooh, this raises a question. Could it be la Tingle was “working from home” the day this piece was written?
ar
29 Oct 11 at 3:30 pm
Of course she was home. The old codger took to the piece when she was attending to the soiled laundry changed it all and pressed send
Jc
29 Oct 11 at 3:35 pm
I suspect FR would get better written and more sensible articles from Lara Bingle.
Chris M
29 Oct 11 at 3:37 pm
imagine how much larger the liberals would lead by without that negative, opportunistic and hollow man?
that is the hypothesis: the Libs are winning big despite the negative, opportunistic and hollow man; and the Libs are being held back from a lead much larger than 60-40 because of the negative, opportunistic and hollow man!
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 4:08 pm
If only the Liberals were more negative when on the Treasury benches…I’m talking to you, Red Ted.
.
29 Oct 11 at 4:12 pm
Lots of people will care, in the next 50 years. But don’t let that worry you. 50 years from now you (and I) will be dead.
You know why the “skeptics” hate the BEST results? Because they showed that, in one area at least, the climate scientists were right. This increases the probability that the rest of climate science is correct.
And Tony Abbott is a turkey, but he seems to play politics well.
John Brookes
29 Oct 11 at 5:04 pm
No labor policy. Intervention in the Qantas dispute. Refusing to allow amendments that would advance his own boat people policy. Mostly a policy-free zone.
The real question is: where is the articulated moderate conservative policy platform that Abbott pretends to represent? The answer is it just does not exist.
Conservatives are delighting in Abbott’s ability to deliver cut through one-liners and relentlessly exploiting the government’s weaknesses. What Laura Tingle is asking is: what sort of policies can we expect from an Abbott government? He seems to be a regulation-loving, big spending “conservative” and it’s disappointing to read this sort of blog post from Judith with no analysis, just snide asides.
Mark P
29 Oct 11 at 5:04 pm
I think you are being a little unfair with this comparison . . . Unfair to Lara Bingle in assuming she would write such crap!
Johno
29 Oct 11 at 5:05 pm
The models do not backtest. Buck up princess and show us a model validated by backtesting.
2/3 = a minority?
.
29 Oct 11 at 5:17 pm
Tingle is trying to apply the wedge attack on the Abbot/ liberal team with SFA success. The last person who tried that was Malcolm Turnbull and we all know what happened there.
Abbot is telling business dont buy Carbon Credits cos we will get rid of them, so it is not surprising our financial rag is getting Abbot hate mail from vested interests currently over-spending a billion a week.
Gowest
29 Oct 11 at 5:26 pm
I wonder if they are getting hate mail from these shills:
http://www.igcc.org.au/
Funny how they don’t mention profits from carbon credit trades.
I hope they go more broke than Poseidon Gold did.
.
29 Oct 11 at 5:29 pm
No it doesn’t. That’s the fallacy of induction.
Plus, even if the climate scientists are right, that’s not a justification for a carbon tax, since a carbon tax won’t prevent global warming.
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 5:39 pm
There is absolutely no reason beyond redistribution of dollars behind the lefts love of climate change. It’s really a strategic no brainer, the climate always changes.
It fits right into their world view of evil capitalist externalities causing havoc.
Total utter rubbish. It’s time for a counter revolution, the revolution has been and it was a total uncompromising failure. Now time to clean house of the remnants. Socialism and labour theory of value is finished. Gone kaput. Worthless. Everything leftists has been shown to be counterproductive and worthless.
Socialist governments and there stupid Keynesian economics have bankrupted themselves almost universally. The public won’t put up with bailing out the elites for much longer.
Irving J
29 Oct 11 at 5:41 pm
You know why the “skeptics” hate the BEST results?
In the world of warmenism, Muller (the BEST project leader) is a sceptic and yet sceptics also hate the BEST results.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 5:41 pm
Nor does it pass any reasonable, rigourous and honest cost benefits analysis.
To add to that, the ETS Gillard has given us is a really bad policy and an example of how not to write policy.
.
29 Oct 11 at 5:42 pm
I’m sceptical of CAGW and don’t “hate the BEST results” — in fact I quite like them.
John Brookes obviously hasn’t read the Best paper where they acknowledge that they don’t know the cause of the temperature increase since c.1880 and that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated” (pdf file link included in text).
According to them, the science is not settled,
manalive
29 Oct 11 at 5:45 pm
Note to climate fanatics.
A carbon tax won’t prevent global warming!!!!
daddy dave
29 Oct 11 at 5:46 pm
You are right DD, but the CO2 tax will allow the leftist untermensch to don their hair-shirts and demonise the affluence of the MacDonald eating classes. As usual with the left, it’s not about doing good, but about feeling good.
I really wish that a psychologist would do a study to identify the chemical imbalance that is clearly extant in the brain of the average leftist. Someone could then develop a drug to correct the problem, so that the leftists could almost be capable of living normal lives. It would be such a great service to humanity to calm down these posturing, pig-ignorant gits who make much more noise than sense, and to whom real-life is an endless zero sum game.
Rococo Liberal
29 Oct 11 at 5:55 pm
Manalive, there are many interesting things coming out of the BEST results, notably the large difference between it and HadCRU for the early 19th C, and the large difference between current temps and those of the LIA which some warmenists argue is grossly exaggerated and yet the BEST results suggest it was approx. 1.5 C cooler.
BTW, McIntyre’s first thoughts on BEST seem rather positive for a sceptic.
dover_beach
29 Oct 11 at 5:55 pm
Jo Nova has a good take on the BEST [!] results:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/thank-god-best-project-rescues-us-from-thousands-of-lying-global-thermometers/#comment-632557
I am surprised John Brookes is here; he gets treated very politely at Jo’s considering he last and to date only sensible thing he has said was “I’m leaving”.
cohenite
29 Oct 11 at 6:05 pm
On the appalling intellectual state of the right, as Fred Daly said, you can have the arguments, if I can have the numbers.
Which side is winning? Are left-wing governments winning office?
Jim Rose
29 Oct 11 at 6:11 pm
Ben Eltham on The Drum website (sorry, I haven’t discovered how to cut and paste on the iPad, but it’s easy to find) runs what has become a standard Labor narrative
1 Abbott is negative. Negative is nasty. (in the past, opposition leaders were not negative)
2. Sure, the coalition is way ahead, but two years is a long time in politics and when the election comes the sun will be shining and Gillard might win because Abbott is so unpleasant.
3 Even if Abbott wins – and here the story forks – (a) Abbott is so unpleasant that the Libs will replace him with someone nice, probably Turnbull (b) Abbott will be so bad that the ALP will come racing back, be re elected and the Libs will be out for generations.
Eltham’s must be the fifth or sixth iteration of this story I have read.
Has someone handed out talking points, or have they all grabbed for the same straw?
I can’t remember anything as dopey as this from the Libs, ever. Remember when the criticism of them was that they thought they were born to rule, so and election loss must be an aberration?
ken n
29 Oct 11 at 6:53 pm
Now QANTAS is grounded, global warming will no doubt cease pmsl !!
hzhousewife
29 Oct 11 at 7:07 pm
Yes. It’s his job.
wreckage
29 Oct 11 at 7:33 pm
Part of his job, wreckage. The only part that matters now. The other part, where he delivers good new policies and convinces the public that he’s ready to “govern for all Australians” as the cliche goes, that remains to be seen.
m0nty
29 Oct 11 at 7:55 pm
As a simple person who relies on fact and logic, the dude from qld has been towelled up by posters’ rebutting whether science is settled on man’s impact on global warming. If the science is settled it should be very easy for Australia’s chief scientist to answer:
1. Is climate change bad? Ie climate changes, always has, why do we want to maintain status quo now?
2. What is % of bad man-made CO2 versus total CO2?
3. Is CO2 primary driver of climate change?
4. Does more CO2 stimulate plant life – thereby bringing system back into balance ?
I
Jack
29 Oct 11 at 8:36 pm
As a simple person who relies on fact and logic, the dude from qld has been towelled up by posters’ rebutting whether science is settled on man’s impact on global warming. If the science is settled it should be very easy for Australia’s chief scientist to answer:
1. Is climate change bad? Ie climate changes, always has, why do we want to maintain status quo now?
2. What is % of bad man-made CO2 versus total CO2?
3. Is CO2 primary driver of climate change?
4. Does more CO2 stimulate plant life – thereby bringing system back into balance ?
I
Jack
29 Oct 11 at 8:36 pm
Also, why do climate scientists think they can succeed where mighty King Canute failed ?
Jack
29 Oct 11 at 8:39 pm
Abbott is doing his job, mOnty, and doing it very well. As for “governing for all Australians,” the Brown/Gillard crowd are doing nothing of the sort. Brown and Gillard have diminished themselves in government, while Abbott has gained in stature as opposition leader. I would expect him to further improve in government because he is proving self-aware and able to think, unlike the mantra drone who is our present and temporary PM.
mareeS
29 Oct 11 at 8:41 pm
Well renowned forecaster John Kwiggen from UQ predicted the Liberals would be deceased by now.
Another notch on his belt no doubt.
.
29 Oct 11 at 8:55 pm
Sure, I’m not doubting that.
m0nty
30 Oct 11 at 6:59 am
aggh! Tingle just misused the term “Rent seeker” on Insiders.
The problem with these left-wing bozo journalists mangling the term is that they’re undermining it. We don’t like rent-seeking, but if every capitalist is now a ‘rent-seeker’ then it just becomes a left-wing term of abuse.
daddy dave
30 Oct 11 at 9:50 am
Please explain.
.
30 Oct 11 at 9:59 am
She was referring to comments on poker machine reform by James Packer, who she described as “a rent seeker, like everyone.”
The rent seeker in this scenario is Wilkie. Poker Machine reform is the rather expensive rent he is demanding for living on the property known as the Lodge.
daddy dave
30 Oct 11 at 10:22 am
Packer is a rent seeker but Tingle doesn’t understand why. “Like everyone else”. So she’s justifying everyone else but painting him as a villain.
What an airhead.
.
30 Oct 11 at 10:25 am
dd
‘Rent-seekers’ is coming from the same crowd pushing the “99%” meme. Now, here is where you and I will agree, coz if these bozoes actually push, prod, and dissect this meme they’re playing with, they will find that the world of wealth creation is far more complicated – and interesting – with rent-seeking of no importance whatsoever, anymore than Charlie Sheen is pussy-seeking. In fact, ceteris paribus I’d prefer to live in a society where rent-seekers outnumbered socialists, than vice-versa. The former would be more exciting, rich, creative, and stimulating. As anybody who has ever worked for an enterprise, which is optimistic it can sew the market up, it is a great ride.
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 10:40 am
This place would be a treasure trove of phrases and idioms for a psychotherapist who believed in “hyper-reality” for their clients.
.
30 Oct 11 at 10:43 am
Don’t you like pussy dot?
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 10:46 am
Poker Machine reform is an example of expressive voting.
Expressive voters are different from rationally irrational voters in that expressive voters do not care much that the policy reform they are cheering for actually works.
Rationally irrational voters actually think the policies they support work.
Has the Poker Machine reform debate actually been shocked by references to whether the competing reforms have actually worked anywhere.
Pre-commitment already is in place: most of the salary of those gambling degenerates.
Some binge on gambling to blow their salary within a few days of pay day, other gambling degenerates spread their losses over the fortnight.
Jim Rose
30 Oct 11 at 10:46 am
Clearly you have never been on the ‘Sales’ side of ‘Sales and Trading’. Oh man, WHAT a ride.
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 10:48 am
And as if Tingle is not a fricking rent-seeker herself! Unfortunately, for her and her ilk, the only Australian journo whose come close to acing that one is The Bolta.
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 10:52 am
There is nothing wrong with rent-owning, per se Rupert Murdoch’s bravura performance with the British pay TV [non]-industry during the 1990s was simply beautiful. He deserved his rents. No one else could craft that silk purse.
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 10:59 am
Patsy, whatever gave you that idea – even you like it.
Bam.
.
30 Oct 11 at 11:23 am
What’s this then? PP as Michael Lewis and JC as our very own Dash Riprock?
.
30 Oct 11 at 11:30 am
dot
I’m not pulling up too quickly this morning after last night. So, please explain as I have no idea what you are going on about.
Peter Patton
30 Oct 11 at 12:16 pm
He’s been health minister and education minister, hasn’t he? So he can work in and with departments, even quite challenging ones. It’s also worth noting contraception didn’t become illegal, even when his rosaries were right next to everyone’s government-run ovaries. Nor did our children all get hypnotised into being Catholic and start demanding a packed Eucharist with their school lunches.
He’s a volunteer in at least two organisations where he is required to put team and community safety far, far ahead of his own (lifesaver and bushfire brigade). These cannot be overstated as recommendations of his character.
In short, in governmental experience he trumps most of the current government. In community service he trumps… well, everyone. Ignoring his own beliefs in humble acknowledgement of his role as a servant of the will of the Australian people – he’s done that too.
Apart from century out-of-date anti-Catholic hysteria, what’s the problem?
wreckage
30 Oct 11 at 1:00 pm
“If climate change is likely to drive food scarcity, why are we shutting down a million hectares of food production in favour of man-made recreational lakes?”
“If climate change is likely to drive food scarcity why are we locking up ever increasing areas in national parks and pine forest?”
“If zero-net-emissions is a good thing, why did we shut down a billion* acres of limited, sustainable logging for firewood, the only truly renewable thermal fuel?”
“If fuel consumption is bad, why aren’t we working to make the road system more efficient, instead of installing a 50 $bn power-gobbling network that will increase net household energy use?”
“If water scarcity is a reality, and power consumption is bad, why aren’t we building more dams, or working on developing dams with low-to-positive environmental externalities?”
“If we really need to produce energy without CO2 emissions why aren’t we looking at hydro and nuclear, which have the potential to completely replace coal rather than trim off a few megawatts from our deliberately coal dependent energy infrastructure?”
“If food miles are bad, why haven’t you moved to the bush and started growing pumpkins, you hypocritical, self-righteous, ignorant zealot? At least run a few chooks in your backyard.”
“If industries are to be rewarded for lowering emissions, why don’t farmers, who have reduced not only emissions growth, but total emissions, get a big fat cheque from the grateful political class, instead of sneering condescension and an ever-growing load of unpaid and unrecognised environmental goods production obligations?”
*yes folks, that was an exaggeration.
wreckage
30 Oct 11 at 1:20 pm